March 31, 2014

I'm not a stickler about proper usage of the English language (mote, log, own eye, etc.), but still, the decline of the word "disinterested" represents a decline in moral as well as literary standards:

Lizeth Chacon of Aurora, Colo., who signs up Latinos to vote, reports growing disinterest in registration.

AURORA, Colo. — As the weather warms, Lizeth Chacon is anticipating a new season of registering Latino voters — yet dreading experiences like one late last year, when she came upon a skate park full of older teenagers.

“I thought, ‘The perfect age! They’re turning 18,’ ” said Ms. Chacon, just 26 herself, born in Mexico and now the lead organizer at Rights for All People, a local immigrant organizing group. But among the roughly 50 people she approached in this increasingly diverse city east of Denver, “not a single person” was interested in her pitch, including those already old enough to vote: “They were like, ‘Why? Why would I bother to vote?’ ”

Man for man, Mexicans are not the most formidable political opponents a party can have.

But don't worry. There are 50 billion laws out there which means they eventually will be registered to vote even if they don't want to, and they'll probably vote Democrat all their lives even if they never vote.

ZOMG GREAT HISPANIC TIDAL WAVE LOL! Salsa is outselling ketchup! (Small print: This gringo bought 50 bottles of salsa and six of ketchup last year. Ketchup is thick, salsa is now.)

ZOMG GREAT HISPANIC TIDAL WAVE LOL! Univision shows beat ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CW! (Small print: New Univision programming in the summer beats the English speaking nets' summer reruns, and only among the under 25 demographic, not exactly the one Madison Avenue really covets.)

Wonder where the money for these professional agitators and 'activists' really comes from. It's doubtful that it's self-funded by Hispanics. Their website seems a little too slick and packaged. It looks to be a leftist front to radicalize Hispanics using what they think is an issue dear to them as a vehicle.If Hispanics are leery of getting involved in politics then that shouldn't be surprising. Politics in their home countries are crooked and brutal. It hasn't done them any good. They may sense that someone else is trying to use them for other, more opaque, reasons.

Their disinterest in voting doesn't matter quite as much as it should. Their presence in the census means that they still get a congressional district just like you, no matter how few know how to read, bother to vote, or are even here legally. Some congressional districts have turnout 3-4 times higher than others, thanks to these rotten boroughs.

3. Which leads us to the third topic: Mestizo/Amerind Hispanic apathy.White Hispanic Miss Chacon is out trying to organize that much heralded Hispanic tsunami that is going to re-shape the political order in Anglo America ....Only she swiftly slams into a barrier composed of pure Mestizo inertia.

I'm not a stickler about proper usag...but still, the decline of the word "disinterested" represents a decline...

No kidding. That mis-use is downright illiterate. I'd almost rather believe that it's part of a deliberate Orwellian campaign to destroy thought by destroying the ability to make distinctions, than that writers and editors at a paper-of-record really are such piss-poor writers.

The federal government has so aggressively enforced existing immigration laws that one national Hispanic leader recently nicknamed the president “deporter in chief”...

Obviously, the administration is guilty of cultural imperialism in trying to impose simplistic and alien Anglo notions of law-abidingness on Hispanics. What is needed is sensitivity toward their long and rich cultural traditions, which evince a far more subtle and flexible understanding of "law".

(Ha. If only that statement were true in the first place.)

“There’s a sense from some people that there’s nowhere to turn, and I’m afraid they’re just going to be frozen in frustration,” said Lisa Duran... [emph added]

Back in the 70's the Ca legislature had not even one Latino(Hispanic)member. To remedy this a district was carved out at the next redistricting in East San Jose. The district was overwheming Latino. The legislators even had a candidate picked out, a local grocer. But after the district was formed 7 Latinos jumped in seeking the seat. Eventually all but two(and the grocer)were persuaded not to run. With the Latino vote divided and WITH THE LOW TURNOUT the one Anglo in the race won. He served 4 terms(this was before term limits) and after that he wife ran and won twice. I think this district now has a Latino legislator but twenty years later than planned. Even if the Latino vote had not been divided the LOW TURNOUT AMONG LATINO VOTERS would have has this result.

"Man for man, Mexicans are not the most formidable political opponents a party can have."

unless, of course, there were over 100 million of them, right on your border, and invading.

california gone forever in only 20 years. i'd say, that's quite formidable. no US presidential candidate, from either party, will ever have to campaign in california ever again. the election results are known 4 years ahead of time, every time.

so mexican teenagers are not interested in voting. wouldn't that make them...the same as all other teenagers? come back in 10 years and see how they vote. and how many new mexicans they have made.

That that is one white assed honkey. A white Mexican, which makes her upper class by Latin American standards. So we have a white Mexican whining that the Mestizos her people bred/trained to be docile and not challenge white Mexicans are...being docile and not challenging white Amurkins.

Grey Enlightenment: There are a lot of mexican american so there are lots of mexican american voters even if their overall voting rate is low.

Also increasing the number of of mexican american voters increases both parties pandering to them which decreases white voting rate. So it may be that with those two effects together it's essentially the same as if mexican americans voted at the same rate as whites.

Grey Enlightenment: There are a lot of mexican american so there are lots of mexican american voters even if their overall voting rate is low.

Also increasing the number of of mexican american voters increases both parties pandering to them which decreases white voting rate. So it may be that with those two effects together it's essentially the same as if mexican americans voted at the same rate as whites.

If the Mexican youths aren't interested in voting that means the Mexican youths, contrary to the leftist line, don't feel oppressed. Things are pretty damned good for them in gringoland, all BS to the contrary notwithstanding.

Here's an idea that doesn't seem to get enough attention: many hispanics in America live in what amounts to a parallel society within a society, culturally speaking. This basic fact may seem so obvious as to hardly merit a mention, but the implications are deep, and fascinating. How do ideas and mores get pushed in modern America? Primarily, through the media, and also the schools. What are these institutions all about? Cultural Marxism 24/7, of course. Thanks to the language barrier, and the related cultural barrier, many hispanics are less hooked into these institutions than are longer-standing Americans, and hence less assimilated into the latest tenets and minutia of the church of cultural Marxism. They may intuitively know that their host nation is weak, but they cannot be fully whipped up into activism and intellectual radicalism, as their handlers would like. Sure, Unavision gives them a good dose of grievance mongering, and democrats will bus as many of them as they can into the voting booths, but the assimilation only goes so far. On top of all this, for many hispanics, literacy, even in Spanish, is an issue, and as Steve has repeatedly pointed out, hispanic culture is not reading culture, anyways. That's another set of circumstances that partially shields hispanics from the full-on monte of PC propaganda and university-sponsored brainwashing. What's remarkable is that some Hispanic immigrants don't even speak Spanish, but indigenous languages instead, leaving them further culturally isolated, further down the totem pole, so to speak (this set, for now, may not be likely to attain citizenship and vote, but mere residence is enough to affect culture, and they ain't affecting much). Another thing to consider: hispanics tend to live amongst other hispanics, in hispanic communities. Their day-to-day world is, again, largely experienced in a parallel society within a society, with little interaction with "respectable" society.

Considering the environment of institutionally ensconced cultural Marxism in America today, perhaps it's a good thing indeed that we haven't fully assimilated these newest denizens from south of the border. Lower rates of political participation amongst them is probably the best thing for which we can hope.

I'm as much a stickler for correct usage as anyone, but I'd bet that good and pragmatic writers like Twain would agree with me that the disinterested/uninterested distinction is useless overkill. 'Dis' should impart the same meaning before 'interested' that it does before 'affected'. 'Impartial' is a much better word for fair or evenhanded. By the way, in a Who/Whom society you English teachers are obsolete anyway.

By the way, in a Who/Whom society you English teachers are obsolete anyway.

I know you're driving at something else, but I'll at least mention that I'm a chemistry teacher, but I still expect proper English in my room, and I find odd ways of making other subjects part of my class.

Even in his prime that supposed master of English William F. Buckley had a tenuous grasp of this distinction.

(eg in the Chomsky debate he says "uninterested" before correcting himself to say "disinterested"...of course he may have been especially flustered on that day as Chomsky just brutalized Buckley on the latter's own television show).

Lamenting the loss of ‘disinterested’ is more than just lexicographical nostalgia. The concept of the disinterested observer has been mocked by the postmodernists for so long now that aiming at such an ideal has ‘progressed’ from merely risible to almost inconceivable.

Kicking aside the sad remains of western rationality and rule of law just clears the way for Who? Whom?.

"Even in his prime that supposed master of English William F. Buckley had a tenuous grasp of this distinction.

(eg in the Chomsky debate he says "uninterested" before correcting himself to say "disinterested"...of course he may have been especially flustered on that day as Chomsky just brutalized Buckley on the latter's own television show)."

Buckley has a history of butchering words. Perhaps his greatest influence is his use of "oxymoron" for "contradiction."

"I'm as much a stickler for correct usage as anyone, but I'd bet that good and pragmatic writers like Twain would agree with me that the disinterested/uninterested distinction is useless overkill. 'Dis' should impart the same meaning before 'interested' that it does before 'affected'. 'Impartial' is a much better word for fair or evenhanded. By the way, in a Who/Whom society you English teachers are obsolete anyway."

No. The absurdity of thinking the two words are interchangeable is easily shown. Consider the headline: 'Single mothers disinterested in welfare debate.'

In one sense, the less latinos vote, the more powerful latino politicians will become. Just by being here, they create rotten districts and therefore safe seats for latino pols. And the fewer actual voters that a politican has to appeal to, the easier and cheaper it is for him to win reelection.

At some point in the future, these kids will be registered voters, and some one will do their voting. Blacks who moved from the south to Chicago found that they did not have to sit all day to become a voter. The precinct captain would register them and do their voting. They didn't have to even go to the polling booth to vote straight democratic. It would be done for them. Chicago was truly the promised land! Steve, now you know why your father-in-law was driven from Austin.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.